Fujifilm X-T10 Review

The Fujifilm X-T1 was a landmark camera in many ways, with it's extremely high resolution electronic viewfinder, great image quality, weather-sealed body, and engaging control system (we even gave it a Gold award). It's fairly commonplace for camera companies to follow up successful launches of high-end products, such as the X-T1, with a slightly-stripped down, more reasonably-priced alternative that uses many of the same components; a younger sibling, if you will. The Fujifilm X-T10 is exactly that.

At its core are the same 16MP X-Trans CMOS II APS-C sensor and EXR Processor II. It carries on the SLR-like tradition (as opposed to Fujifilm's more rangefinder-like cameras), and offers ample control points, customizable buttons, a tilting LCD, and of course, Fujifilm's much-loved film emulations. Fujifilm is aiming it at hobbyist and a younger generation of creatives: essentially those who might not be able to afford (or don't want to spend more than $1000 on) the X-T1, but still want the same image quality it offers.

As expected, a large number of the key features associated with the X-T10 are identical, or very similar, to those of the X-T1. One major feature, a vastly improved AF system, was first announced as a firmware update for the X-T1 a few weeks ago. Every one of those AF updates come standard in the X-T10. They mainly concentrate on improving AF performance in low contrast situations as well as adding the ability to track subjects across the frame. This is the first time Fujifilm has offered any sort of real subject tracking capabilities to its cameras.

The X-T10 also sports a brand new graphic user interface that offers customizable display icons. Other features includes front and rear control dials that can be clicked inward, essentially giving each dial a secondary function. Also, as of launch, Fujifilm claims the X-T10's EVF has 'the World's shortest lag time' at just 0.005 secs.

Compared to X-T1

The X-T10 is available now for $400 less than the X-T1's list price. That's a nice chunk of change saved that could be invested in lenses or other accessories. So what do you sacrifice?

Fujifilm X-T10

Fujifilm X-T1

Sensor

16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor

16MP X-Trans CMOS II sensor

Processor

EXR Processor II

EXR Processor II

ISO range (expanded)

ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)

ISO 200-6400, plus 100 - 51200 expanded (JPEG only)

Body material

Magnesium alloy

Magnesium alloy

Weather sealing

No

Yes

Custom function buttons

7

6

Viewfinder specs

2.36M dot OLED EVF with 0.62x magnification

2.36M dot OLED EVF with 0.77x magnification

LCD specs

3 inch, 920k dots

3 inch 1040k dots

Pop-up flash

Yes

No

Flash sync port

No

Yes

Burst rate

8fps

8fps

Size

400cm3

541cm3

Weight

381g

440g

Body price at launch

$800

$1300

While both cameras offer 2.36M dot OLED EVFs, the X-T10's is smaller, using optics that offer 0.62x magnification, vs the 0.77x magnification of the X-T1's EVF. If 0.62x magnification sounds familiar, that's because the Fujifilm X30 compact has the exact same EVF, with the same magnification.

You'll also lose the extensive weather-sealing of the X-T1. This sacrifice is a bit less obvious, as the X-T10 has a very impressive build-quality and feel, on par with the X-T1. Interestingly, it is not made in Japan like most of Fujifilm's high-end gear. The bottom reveals it is instead manufactured in Thailand. Other differences include a slightly less high-res LCD on the X-T10, 920k dots vs 1040k dots on the X-T1.

On the flip side, the X-T10 does offer some advantages over its big brother, including a pop-up flash, that new graphic user interface in the viewfinder, and a smaller, lighter body; 381g vs 440g. It's not an earth-shattering difference, but it is certainly noticeable.

The two cameras are laid out in very similar fashion. Both offer 3 control dials on top, with plenty of custom function buttons located around the camera body. The X-T10 has seven customizable buttons in total, compared to six on the X-T1. In terms of direct controls, the X-T10 has a dedicated shutter speed, exposure compensation and drive mode dial.

Kit options and accessories

The Fujifilm X-T10 will be available in either black or silver in a variety of different kit options. The silver, by the way, is a brand new coating that is slightly lighter in color than the 'titanium' coating of the X-T1.

The body only is set at $800, kitted with a Fujinon 16-50mmf/3.5-5.6 OIS it will cost $899. With the nicer Fujinon 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS, it will cost $1099. Interestingly, the X-T10, body-only, will retail for exactly the same price, at launch, as another new APS-C ILC: the Nikon D5500.

Fujifilm is also offering two different accessories as of launch: a leather case and a hand grip. The hand grip is essentially the same design concept as the ones released for the X-E2 and X-Pro1 back in January, 2014. It affixes to the bottom of the camera body and doubles as an ArcaSwiss-compatible plate. Pretty sweet. The leather case is also quite well-thought-out, it offers a door to access the battery and memory card, without having to take it off, as well as a tripod socket.

Comments

I have owned this camera for a few months and found out that you are so right in that it is a pleasure to use, makes me wanna pick it up and shoot and takes great pictures.

One thing I have found out in my camera is that in high contrast scenes it tends to underexpose as if it meters for the brightly lit parts of the frame. Due to the handy exposure compensation dial, I correct this without even taking my eye from the viewfinder but I consistently find that It is quite pronounced as I feel I need to correct by about +1 stop to bring the exposure to my liking.

i am really confused between sony a6300 and fuji xt10. i normally do street and documentary photography(where at times i encounter low light and low contrast situation). i use single af points mostly. i dont care for megapixel and high bust mode. all that i really want is 1) good auto-focus speed and accuracy 2) good image quality raw and good dynamic range 3) good low light performance. and one more thing, in my country,India, somehow the sony a6300(70k) is quite cheaper than fuji xt10(80k). So, what do i choose, plz help?

Thank you DPREVIEW! You just saved me a lot of money. I normally shot a Canon 5DsR and wanted a smaller travel companion. I compared the image quality of the XT-10 and various Olympus & Lumix offerings using your lab testing tool. The X-T10 was better hands down. Then I rembered that I had a Canon G7X laying around. I'm only interested in real world results and since I do a lot of A2 printing I compared the X-T10 to the G7X where I hade to up-scale the X-T10 get the same print size at 300 dpi. At these settings it turns out the G7X is better than the X-T10 even when you pixel peep. This apply to the native ISO which is where I find myself 99% of the time. Instead of spending 2000+ USD for camera and lenses I can now use my 24-100 mm GX7 and only spend money on a table top tripod. In printing up to A2 I actually have a hard time to distinguish my 5DsR files from the ones coming from the G7X.

Just going through this review, and I'm impressed by the performance (According to the review, but have yet to take on out for a "test drive" myself). The one part that bothers me the most is that the reviewer focuses on the OOC JPEGs, and I guess that's fine, but many people (at least the ones I know) don't use the OOC JPEGs that much and much rather work with the RAW files, I hope that Adobe has fixed whatever issues there were for this camera by now as I'm seriously considering one. I would probably be getting the better 18-55 f/2.8-4 if I do for the low-light performance. I'm also wondering about print size, if someone can verify the largest print you can expect before distortion or loss of quality occurs. I don't expect to print large (as most of my work will be for on-screen use/viewing), but may ocassionaly like to print a 11x17 print or something around that size. 16MP is, however, the lowest I would go in terms of resolution, despite it's advantages in pixel size.

I'm not saying you can't print images with a 12MP, but the question then becomes how good is the quality of those prints (image quality) in particular, for the media and viewing intent. If it's smaller, then 12MP might be fine, but 12MP might not be enough for a large reprint (say 4x3 ft)...

@sirhawkeye64 I wouldn't push 12 mp much past 20x30. Although there are options to upres.

However I am someone that loves printing, and I print a fair bit. Very rarely is anything past 20x30 used by people. 4 by 3 feet is quite large and people don't usually dedicate that much real estate to one picture.

I would be fine pushing past 20x30 with 16mp, although I haven't had cause to.

I was just using 12MP as an example.... I agree that anything more than what you said wouldn't be a good print (unless modifications to the image were made, but even then so, that might not be enough). Heck, even my 16-24MP shots from my DSLR(s) I don't like to print much beyond 11x17. But also most of my images are processed for screen viewing (I've only done a handful that were targeted specifically for printing).

Don't get me wrong... I like the XT10 when I had it, but the one thing that sort of bothered me was the 16MP. And since I do landscapes mostly (and the Fuji was intended to be a backup/second camera to my D750), I was looking for something with a bit higher resolution (to allow enough pixels for sufficient cropping etc). I'm looking at the XT20 now, since they gave it a 24MP sensor. The only other concern is the cost of glass, where I'd have to invest in another lens system....

We have come (too) far when ISO 6400 is "rather limiting" in Raw mode. For all intended purposes – quite literally – 6400 is miles and miles and miles past what anyone needs, 99 % of the time. And that goes for anyone who holds a camera – with professional photography it's even less true. Someone who calls herself/himself a professional photographer, and claims she/he is limited by ISO 6400, is of course not a professional photographer.

I needed it tonight. I was taking pictures indoors at night with a long zoom at f/5. Yeah, I know - the solution is to get a faster long zoom. But those can get pretty expensive. I was at ISO 6400 and was wishing my d7000 didn't totally fall apart at higher ISOs.

But that's kind of the problem here. Photographers (of all kinds, me included unfortunately) wish all their cameras wouldn't "totally fall apart at higher ISOs". I would love for my little point-and-shoot to do noiseless 102,400 ISO – and I'm sure that in a decade or so that's close to reality. But isn't that just vulgar? Isn't photography about finding and using light? Photography is NOT about going to dark places with expensive equipment hoping for excellent results. Work around your limitations, be creative, don't go around waiting for Canon announcements about new, higher ISO capabilities.

I do not know, you can expect whatever you want, whatever makes you happy. Just don't claim you're limited by ISO 6400. If you feel you are, maybe a change in perspective (or method) is the way to go. My original sentiment still stands:

A good or professional photographer claiming she/he is limited by ISO 6400, is not a good nor professional photographer, sorry.

Then the D4 and D5 should have come topped out at ISO 6400. Yet somehow people (even professionals) talk about how good it is at higher ISOs. Gasp! How could it be - why would they even bother with those ISOs. Well - they must suck.

Spoken like a true amateur. If one does evening event and investigative journalism for a living, namely in the trenches photography which is definitely pro, then ISO 6400 and higher is the norm. Think outside the box please.

So we didn't have pro photojournalism work pre-ISO 6400? I don't even get why I bother arguing here, because this is too stupid. I suspect you think that I think ISO 6400 and above is bad or unnecessary. That is of course not the case. It is unequivocally a good thing to have the choice of shooting at for instance ISO 1000000 (or above). I just called out the ridiculousness of claiming that it's limiting to photographers (and I define this as the average working photographer) to shoot at ISO 6400 or below. OF COURSE it can be limiting to SOME photographers SOMETIMES. But to claim it as a general limitation is dumb.

Going simply from the camera's manual, I believe the following is misleading: "In my limiting testing of the X-T10's subject tracking capabilities across the frame using AF-C [a bunch of stuff] Furthermore, when the camera is set to Wide/Tracking, it only uses contrast detect AF. "

According to the manual, the contrast-detect-only AF is for AF-S, Wide mode. As far as I can tell, in AF-C (Tracking mode) the phase-detect sensors are still used.

Notably, in CH burst mode, *only* the phase-detect sensors are used. That significantly limits the area of the viewfinder that the subject can be tracked across during a high-speed burst.

Picked this body up along with the 35f2, 90f2, and 16f1.4 today. I have been a long time Sony fanboy and shoot the A7 with most of the FE lenses. I bought the Fuji as a second system to use. I went with Fuji because of the great lens selection, sizes, and prices. Plus the camera puts all the controls at your finger tips. It has only been one day but I feel like selling all my sony gear and going all out fuji. I need to wait for the honeymoon period to end but dang, this is a great camera to shoot with. My only gripe is that it is so small and has almost no finger grip so the 90mm makes your wrist and fingers tired only after a short time. I ordered the fuji grip for it so hopefully that helps. I see an x-t2 in my future.

Yes I do. As much as I love the xt10 I bought the xpro2 and can't put it down. It is faster in every way and is simply pleasure to shoot with. So much so that I take it everywhere. The xt10 feels sluggish in comparison and it isn't a sluggish camera. So it just sits now. I don't miss my Sony FF at all.

The image quality is equal. All the Fuji lenses are faster so I can shoot at lower ISO settings compared to my A7. Even at 6400 I like the noise grain and color better on the Fuji.

I find the Fuji controls on both bodies much nicer and handling is better than any camera I have used before. I would say my A7 was a little fast at AF than the xt10 but the xpro2 feels a lot faster. It focuses better in low than the A7 as well.

The Fuji lenses make the system though. They are top notch. Fast, sharp, well built, Aperture ring on them, small, and priced well for what you get.

I don't miss my sony system at all. But the X-Pro2 is really the camera body I would recommend.

Such beautiful cameras. I use an X100 ....love the files. However the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker for me.Hold with Pentax and Olympus for me as I find this makes a huge difference to me. Lovely camera though

Ive been using this body for a few weeks now and can pleasingly report that this camera paired with Fuji lenses is incredible. Here's my summary:1) The body is easy to get used to, buttons fully programable, and feels small but ok in the hand. The only gripe I have is that the SD position is less optimal than the XT1. You can program any button to replace the dedicated ISO button if you want.2) the files are very good, either jpeg of raw. I'm using LR to process raw files, and use few presets.3) The lenses i have are the 18-55 f2.8-4, the 35mm f1.4 & the 50-200 f3.5-5.6. All of them render incredible results. They all surprised on the upside. The 18-55 is very very sharp - the sharpest kit lens I've tested. The 50-200 is comparable to my 70-200 f4 Canon, and I've shot sports with this lens and XT10 with extremely good results, despite the smaller buffer than the XT1. The 35mm is about as good as you'll get. No words describe how good this lens is.

yes i agreed,and its more expensive than the others like a6000 or em10 mkII,and for the camera that has in body wifi it's a shame that you cant take any jpegs above 1600 ISO,its useless in parties or indoor jpeg shooting

i have the olympus em1 and just purchased the X-T10, i know this will probably upset the diehard oly fans but this camera takes the wee wee out of a £600 more expensive camera. it performs better in every way i have owned the fony a6000 and that was in my opinion very similar to this for photos as i don't do video. but the build of the fony was cheap. the thing is its just your opinion that matters, if you are happy with your camera then thats the one for you. and I'm happy with the X-T10.

Lightroom RAW converter isn't good for Fuji, what are these guys doing...? Im going to cancel my subscription as soon as I figure out what to do with RAF files. I am thinking of going with Capture One at this moment.

couldn't of put it better. i think people don't buy cameras to take pictures nowadays, it appears they just join some kind of brand cult. personally i buy what i think is the best tool for the job, and at present thats the fuji x-t10.

I often use iso 6400. Im shooting indoor sports in bad light and a party tommorrow.I dont need more than 1 second burst at 8fps for sports so no complaint there.Video? Good enough for the novice for family moments.Touch screen? Would be nice for selecting the focus point but not a must have for me.16mp? Enough for me, I prefer a better sensor (less noise) with the same megapixels.

Sensor resolution does not affect only printing. It also helps, among other things, with cropping which is important to some, like me, who use this as a surrogate for longer focal lengths. So I would prefer the sensor to use the full potential resolution offered by the glass in front of it, or as close as possible. I am not confident 16 Mp is enough to use most of Fuji lenses resolving power (which I would pay for and need).

Brought this to my Italy trip last week. I wanted to bring my 5DMIII but was worried since I'll be walking around and didn't want to carry all that weight. Didn't regret bringing the X-T10 at all! I was very happy with the images it produced.

I own neither a x-t10 or an a6000, but your comments on the final words comparing them honestly don't seem too objective.

Basically it sounds like the Sony is better in nearly every objective measurement minus EVF and *maybe* build quality. Also you say they launched at similar prices, but that means nothing, right now you can get an XT10 body for $800 and an a6000 body for $450. Even if the Fuji drops $50-$100 in the next month or so that's still a huge price difference, comparing a historical price to a current price makes no sense.

To me this all sounds of the Fuji is "cooler" to use but less capable (using your own word). For some reason since Fuji ha been launching retro designed cameras I've seen this distortion field around comparisons, as if this retro cool factor somehow factors into an objective camera comparison beyond a single area of comparing the look and design.

These comparisons aren't as objective as you'd hope. Nobody uses cameras "objectively" either. We aren't objective creatures, we are meatsacks with grubby hands and mushy brains and we have to hold stuff and look at stuff and think about stuff to shoot, some people do all of that differently, in fact. We also have aesthetic preferences, which do matter to us and others around us in many cases.

Though I mostly agree with you, due to everyone being so extremely subjective it's *that* much more important for reviewers to compartmentalize their objective and subjective aspects of the reviews. It's fine saying that you really dig the look and feel of the Fuji personally, but when you say objectively the a6000 is more capable and refuse to compare the actual market price (where the a6000 is nearly half the price or 2/3rds even minus an expected Fuji price drop in the near future by retailers) and they say they are a toss up, well that seems like a horrible comparison summary to me.

I'd be perfectly fine with something along the lines of I personally would have a hard time choosing but right now you can get the a6000 an overall more capable camera significantly cheaper, etc... Instead I got the toss up vibe based mostly on personal preference and though I want to see that in a review a skilled reviewer can communicate both separately.

Fair point about contextualizing the emotional aspects of a review, but it seems to me they are already doing that. You pointed out that they admit the Sony is more capable, what more do you need? If capability is your main concern then your decision is made and you can ponder the mysteries of why some people would choose Fuji later.

Personally I'm glad reviewers take time to describe the Fuji cameras aesthetic/emotional properties. I bought a NEX 6 because it was so capable but it had no soul and I preferred my old Rebel so I returned it. For people who do photography for love or just want to love their cameras the Fuji's offer a very real value in that the cameras somehow make people feel happier than other brands.

On paper it looks that way, and yes the Fuji looks more hip. But after taking a few pictures with the X-T10 and the A6000, you quickly find out that the Fuji is superior and is more then a cool thing to hang around your neck. The image quality difference is extremely easy to see (colors, noise, sharpness) and the X-T10 wins every time (even without have to pixel peep). Hands down, Fuji wins the image contest.

Yeah, the greatest difference is in the AF performance of A6000. I wonder why Fuji changes their kit lens, from the super sharp (best kit lens hands down compared to other brands imho) F2.8-4 18-55mm to this 'almost the same as other kit lens' normal F3.5-5.6 16-50mm. This was the cool factor that made me buy the older (and much cheaper)XE1 / XE2 compared to A6000. Better lens = better IQ, well, strictly in the kit lens / package-buy category at least.

Great camera - far prefer the ergonomics of it to the X100S or XE1 I had previously. Feels very good in the hand: compact, light and stable. I only shoot jpegs and they're excellent once you've played with the settings to suit your taste. Superficial stuff but the camera looks far better in the all black version.

I love how the silver+black version looks, so we disagree only in that I like both colors :D

Personally I liked the rangefinder format of the X-E1 better, and wish the X-T10 was a bit wider, but the extra dial on the top plate is really valuable so it's worth it. The DRIVE menu on the X-E1 was a nightmare and had way too much stuff in it.

The Fuji X series cameras are not known for their excellent autofocus. For me the autofocus speed is fast enough, but the accuracy is a bit of a let down. The X-T10 misses a little too often (so do the other Fuji cameras). Try to take multiple shots of a subject in dim artificial light. Even when you don't move the camera, a lot of shots will be out of focus.

Autofocus on Fuji X is very good for mirrorless. However, we need the next generation to match up or beat dslr's like the D5500. And then with some super Fuji updates we can maybe get close to a D750 focus wise... that's 2016/2017.... So it's a good time to invest in a camera. I sold all my nikon stuff and have been shooting for 6 months Fuji only. Wonderfull stuff it does, but AF is one thing that will improve towards dslr the coming year. its not there yet... But I don;t need fast focus, its fast enough to get my kids on a photo. the rest is studio and portrait for me, and some weddings

For me, all camera JPEGS have been dead since the introduction of RAW. The only time I use a JPEG, is when I export an edited image from my computer. Most people that are serious about resolution, noise reduction and dynamic range shoot RAW anyway. I haven't found any mirrorless competitor in the same price range that delivers image quality as good as the Fuji X series.

i work with a company who is the fuji supplier for the UK and i love this camera the lightweight body and the way it is easy to set up. there are some things that need changing on it to make it 100% but this is a good camera to change from if you want a lightweight decent camera!

The "Custom Settings" feature is pretty useless in Fuji cameras unfortunately, because it can only save a few settings and they are mostly the JPG-only ones that have no effect on RAW files (DR, Film sim, Highlights etc.).

Because you can't name them, and the active one isn't displayed during use (only during selection) they are barely useful even if you want to save sets of the allowed settings. Personally I find it more of a hindrance than a help, and with the configurable Q menu on the X-T10 (and other recent Fuji cameras) I'd rather just remove it entirely so I don't accidentally trigger it.

Instead I set up my Q menu with duplicates of the actual settings I want to use so that it's faster to access them when needed.

If you weren't referring to the "Save Custom Settings" feature then sorry, there are a lot of useful features in the camera that we could talk about, most of them just can't be saved as sets :)

Most requested missing feature - I've owned my X-T10 since the first day is was deliverable. As an alternative to my Nikon D7100, it is doing a nice job. Low noise at high ISO for available light photos, half the weight of my Nikon (which I use regularly). So my first call to tech support was to inquire about the photo review feature. When one uses the electronic viewfinder, the only way to review the photo just taken is via the viewfinder. The camera will not switch to the LED display to allow us to "chimp" the photo. Tech support says "no the camera has no such setting and this is the most often requested feature request they receive".

You'll get used to it! The feature you want isn't really needed by users of the camera, the only reason they would include it is to satisfy DSLR converts who aren't used to EVF yet.

How would it be better to remove the camera from your eye and use the LCD to review? It would be slower, you would lose your composition and the LCD is WAY lower resolution than the EVF, so even for reviewing fine detail it's better (try it someday when you are reviewing photos, the EVF lets you assess fine detail better, though it's uncomfortable to use it for long periods).

Just remind yourself that reviewing in the EVF is the obvious choice with a mirrorless camera like the X-T10, you'll learn to appreciate the smoothness of the experience.

FWIW It's funny but not surprising that tech support considers this a common complaint. You're certainly not the first person I've heard complain about this, and I bet it's a common conclusion for people with decades of DSLR experience.

For people just getting started with ILC though there's no complaints, because the behavior is natural and it's "chimping" that is the strange choice, driven by limitations of past cameras (i.e. uselessness of EVF tech until recently) not by the ergonomics of photography, which of course are being invented as we go, since there was no instant-review on film camreas ;)

I agree and even as I mentioned the difference from DSLR I was thinking maybe I'd adjust. I guess it's just more difficult for those of us using both mirror less and DSLR. Maybe I'll try increasing the review time.

If anything I'd recommend you keep it nice and short. Part of the transition is getting used to the fact that you ALWAYS "chimp" with the EVF, rather than deciding for each photo whether to look at the LCD like you would on a DSLR.

The longer the review time the more disruptive it becomes, and the less interesting since 90% of what you see during review is the same as what you saw before firing the shutter.

For me the goal is to habituate to getting all the exposure right before firing (obviously) then quickly assessing critical sharpness/timing (facial expressions) during the short review period, then switching into full playback mode on the LCD when I need to zoom in to check focus or review multiple images.

@xeriwthe My impression is you are joking around and trying to point out that all the cameras can "review" images on the LCD by going into playback mode. Is that right?

If so my impression was that OP wanted the INSTANT review to happen on the LCD, like it would on a DSLR, not just playback review.

Fuji has never had a way to do instant review on the LCD (i.e. no review in EVF, but if you look at the LCD the image will be there for a couple seconds). There's a good reason why they never would have even considered it too: The original cameras were totally slow at switching from EVF to LCD and basically froze for a second each time you did so. Instant review on the LCD would have been so slow and buggy people would probably have thought it wasn't an intended feature :S

Yes, but the sensor is also one of the best. I own both the current 24 mp sensor and a camera with the 16. The 16 is honestly better. The 24 mp sensor shows noise even at base ISO. The color IMHO is better from the 16 as well. I dunno, I think 16 was the magic number, but that's just my opinion. I also don't understand why people want more megapixels. More MP=earlier diffraction limits.

There's something embarrassing about knowing that my brand new camera can't actually take better pictures than my out of date X-E1, it just feels wrong.

On the other hand I loved the photos from my X-E1, and all my complaints were about ergonomics and AF and missing features like Wifi, electronic shutter etc.

I'd rather Fuji wait 'till they've got somethign really amazing to replace the 16mp with than have them wasting tons of energy releasing new sensors with a 2% improvement to noise and pointless megapixel bumps like Sony/Canon.

When they have something that behaves like a 5DIII I will want it desperately, until then I'm happy with the old sensor wrapped in a modern chassis.

FUJI does not make APS-C sensor. All Fuji uses same SONY sensor as SONY used for NEX6, if I'm not mistaken.

>>>"I'd rather Fuji wait 'till they've got somethign really amazing to replace the 16mp with than have them wasting tons of energy releasing new sensors with a 2% improvement to noise and pointless megapixel bumps like Sony/Canon.".

SONY replaced NEX6's sensor for a6000 is not for " 2% improvement to noise" but AF performance:

Ming Thein made the same observation concerning the 16mp and 24mp sensors. He found the older, lower-res model to provide superior IQ in color reproduction and reaching parity in detail retrieval due to less mushiness from noise...

I mean, even DXO acknowledges the old sensor can achieve superior results. See scores for the D7000 vs. the 5 year newer A6000.

Mike FL, I do not understand where you read that Fuji's sensor is the Sony NEX sensor. Fuji may outsource who makes their sensor, but that doesn't mean the two systems use the same sensor.

The sensor has undergone a recent "modernization in fabrication techniques" which means that the specifications stayed about the same but the construction uses improved techniques for small improvements. So no, it is not the same sensor, just the same megapixels.

Also, note that improvements to autofocus occur due to improvements in the focusing motor, the algorithms, or the processing speed... but not due to changes in the sensor. The sensor only supplies input data.

Now, you could painfully argue that a better low-light sensor would perform AF better in low light... but then you can argue that the f/stop changes how well a camera can autofocus and it just gets yuckier from there.

End of the day, the end product (image quality) that counts. Super duper 100 megapixel sensor whatever, go down the drain if can't beat the 16mp old sensor of Fuji image quality...And image quality is not SOLELY due to sensor pixel & AF, but also good glass..

I got tempted and pushed the button at Amazon. This is my first Fuji coming from Canon, Nikon, and Olympus (and also had the Sony a6000). I can tell you the reputation is everything I expected and more. I was quite skeptical about the 'Fuji look' and Fuji JPEGs, but let me tell you the image quality is nothing like I have ever seen before. Having just sold my Canon 6D, I can tell you the Fuji beats it across the board. Samples on the web don't do it justice, you have to use one for yourself - oh and that EVF - it's stunning.

ijustloveshooting: largely it's due to sharpening and NR, since most people (sensibly) aren't looking at the jpegs at 100%. Turn down or off the in-camera noise reduction and sharpening and it significantly improves at full size. DPR doesn't compare jpegs using those settings. The film simulation also matters.

Video capabilities should not be taken into account when reviewing Fujifilm cameras. I know of no Fuji shooter who bought a Fuji camera to shoot video. Fujis are for taking photographs. Period. The video buttons on my 3 Fujis (the first one bough in 2010) are virgin.

There's no reason to be so strict about this rule. They do have video functions and they do take video, so it's only fair for people to assume that the function works properly. Unfortunately "works properly" is relative and many feel the Fuji video system is so terrible it doesn't even compete with P&S video.

Every Fuji review needs a warning that the video sucks and a demo of the "jaggies" and moiré that are so easily triggered by the sensor design/mediocre programming. I think in this case they were fair in the conclusion: It's a big problem, but not everyone cares, so decide based on that.

Personally I love my Fuji cameras and don't want to switch, but would REALLY like to be able to use the video features without embarassing myself. I'd like to be able to experiment with video without buying a second system.

I do extensive video recording only three times in the year, just for local oriental dancers, and after the switch to Fuji I had to do it with the X-T1 (I´m not crazy enough to buy a specialized capable camera for such a rare occasion). The general video quality is really not good, with lots of flaws, but the system with full manual video controls, and the great optics, is not a total mess. When carefully set up, it can be used and the results are not a real tragedy - and in the end, those people who are interested on the clips are no video professionals, and are very satisfied with the results. Of course I would not use it to make a movie :-) but there is some potential and I really hope that the future sensor will be much more able in video.

I was grateful for the video ability of my Fuji X30 when I spontaneously decided to do video recording at the funeral of jazz legend Ornette Coleman a few months ago. I had no plans to do any video at all but the music was so great I ended up taping every performance. Who cares about the quality when I was able to capture a once-in-a-lifetime event like this. Here is the first one I did and the rest are all up on youtube:

X30 just might have BETTER video than the X-T10 because it doesn't use the X-Trans array on the sensor, it (along with the X-A2) uses a standard bayer array. At least you won't have toxic moiré caused by the lack of AA filter.

The X30 does use the X-Trans array, so it may not be a better choice for video.

As for the OP's suggestion that video capabilities should be disregarded in reviews of Fuji cameras, I think that's absurd. Not many people might buy a Fuji to shoot video, but the feature is there, so some people will want to use it once in a while. And if Fuji cameras were great for shooting video, then of course a lot of people would buy them for that purpose.

Revenant you are right about the X30! Sorry I didn't think they used X-trans on the 2/3 sensors, must have been thinking of the X100 or something.

Also agree that saying "people don't buy Fuji for video" doesn't mean it's not important, it just means Fuji is losing tons of customers who rightly know that Fuji cameras are useless for video. If they were at least decent at it people would be emotionally torn rather than quickly decided against.

The main problem with the X30 video is not the quality (which is much better than X20, but still not more than average), but the exposure inconsistence and autofocus unreliability. The only solution is to use manual focus, and also set all parameters manually, then you can be sure that the camera settings stay the same while recording. When something automatic is set, every little change of composition causes (not always, but mostly) a wild autofocus or exposure change. Of course it is possible to control the video manually, but even then the use is not easy - but in a important moment, everyone would be glad about it.

I think it is totally appropriate since most folks by a system to do both since it is offered on almost all cameras now. Buyers should be warned of the limitations of the camera as far as video goes. Kind of like Nikon not allowing aperture control during shooting. It can seriously limit functionality.

Also, context for video is key. Does this camera produce video that compares to that of leading DSLRs? No. Does it produce video that will exceed pretty much every casual user's expectations? Yes. Remember it wasn't too many years ago you had to buy a separate device to record even CRAPPY video.

I bought an X-T10 with XC 16-50 & second hand 27mm pancake prior to a holiday in the states, my wife refused to let me drag along my 5D3 and all the baggage that goes with it, so glad she did, I shot Jpegs for 3 weeks, never chimped , never got the urge to check my progress apart from a few lunch time wifi uploads to fb via iphone, I can honestly say I am blown away by the quality of this little camera, well worth 500 quid.

There are haters on here, plenty of them, they spend all their free time bitching, pixel peeping & pet photographing.

For those sat on the fence looking for a small form factor quality camera the X-T10 & 27mm pancake will fit a baggy front trouser/shorts pocket..

Or put the 35mm f/1.4 on there and be able to take a picture of anything anywhere. That's my favorite one-lens. Not pocketable by any means, but shockingly capable of sharpness and making things glow in low light.

I was wondering about your statement that "All the reasons that make the X-Trans sensor great for stills, make it not so good for video" — could you please elaborate on that?For example, does the bayer pattern allow for a video-optimized sensor readout that is not possible with a X-Trans pattern? More importantly, does this mean that there is little hope of seeing a firmware update that will address the video issues?

The sensor pattern is designed to naturally avoid moiré without the need for an "AA" filter between the lens and the sensor, which gives you extra sharpness.

That same pattern seems to not help at all with moiré in video, so unlike with stills any fine texture (grates, blinds, stripes and even denim) end up having distracting distortions ("optical illusions" recorded by the sensor) moving around in them.

Maybe Fuji could improve the situation with software, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. The solution for stills is "hardwired" into the sensor, so the solution for video probably needs to be physical as well.

Of course, moiré isn't the only problem with Fuji video, there's a host of bad UI choices that make it nearly useless regardless of the distortions, but moiré is the part being referred to by "all the reasons"...

I wonder as it's presumably a generic Sony 16MP sensor (as per D5100) whether the issue is the different Colour Filter Array really screws with using the on-sensor video hardware, which is presumably optimised to combine pixels assuming a Bayer array?

Thanks for your replies.In that case, would a "cropped" video mode that uses only the central, 1080p-sized portion of the sensor, be a possible solution? Presumably, using only part of the sensor's pixels would reduce the data rate, such that proper demosaicing would be feasible in real time at 24 FPS?...then again, I don't know how the sensor readout actually works, and maybe it is not possible to read out only part of the sensor data.

Fujifilm said in interviews that video is one of their main focuses for their next generation of cameras (probably meaning X-Pro 2 and beyond).

The main problem according to their engineers is sensor readout speed. A higher readout speed means that the image data is available sooner for things like downscaling, autofocus, various processing steps (as well as lowering noise and improving DR), things which all must be done at high speed for video. Their CFA pattern is notoriously difficult to create an efficient and accurate demosaicing algorithm for, and since sensor output for video must be downscaled (which is performance-intensive) before being recorded, readout and processing speed is critical.

I think the problem with Fuji's current video implementation is that they compromise demosaicing to save time, leading to artifacts from the unique CFA. The balance between battery life, image quality and processing speed is tough for these cameras, but should improve in the future.

mrullmi: Cropped video is definitely possible, but most people wouldn't want to crop to 1080p (approx. 8x crop). You would zoom in quite a bit, as well as losing some detail and messing with DOF. The output would be similar to what you see when using the magnification button for manual focus.

I bought two and used them regularly for six weeks while travelling, and it was just great. 50-140/2.8 on one; 10-24/4 on the other; hardly a missed shot, and the pictures came out great and just as expected (I have some experience with Fuji X).

Brought along a 5D mkIII just in case, but hardly ever used it. So in the future this is my travelling gear, the whole Fuji kit (feels like it) weighs less than 5D with 70-200/2.8, and even if the Fuji kit will not replace my Canon gear altoghether, X-T10 is a bargain if you want high iq and easy (still; I don't do video) shooting in a small and light package.

I find the user interface on X-T10 better than X-T1, never got used to all the double dials on the latter. The X-T10 feels smaller in hand than the X-T1 for a minute or two, then you never think about it again. No problem using a big lens like 50-140 on it.

People can "like" your Fuji confirmation bias till the cows come home. Fact is that other cameras give you true raw, the data from the sensor as is. Fuji does not. They apply a bunch of noise reduction to fool people into thinking that their camera has a better noise performance. It is called cheating!

No need to get your nickers in a knot, it was a bit of tongue and cheek...... and yes I am bias towards Fujifilm, nowadays I predominately shoot jpeg, and I've yet to see a camera (apart from Olympus) that renders out of camera jpegs as good as Fuji, but not all is fantastic with Fuji, when it comes to video they're not so good, and to be blunt they're crap, probably the worst on the market, thats why I bought a Panasonic FZ1000, and if I still wanted to play around with RAW files then I'd probably would have kept my Nikon D700 or I would have invested in an upgrade, but I really couldnt be fussed about with RAW anymore, I'm content with Fuji jpegs, all I'm wishing for now is they get their video up to par with other makes

When a camera takes better pictures by default I don't call it cheating I call it better pictures.

FF cameras aren't cheating by having a bigger sensor, pro cameras aren't cheating by offering RAW and Fuji isn't cheating by pre-optimizing their RAW files. All are just ways of improving the images and making life for the photographer easy.

I love my RAW files cooked! Now that Lightroom supports the film simulations it's even better, I can start from a fully flavored image and still have the ability to edit it and change the colors/expsure all day long.

Re: cooked raw, everyone cooks their RAWs to varying degrees; it's a necessary step in recording the image data properly. There are several steps to RAW capture, including readout from the sensor, signal amplification, quantization, compression, demosaicing; when shooting JPEG there is also gamma adjustment, tone curves, noise reduction, sharpening, further compression, local contrast adjustment in some cases, etc.

I think Thom Hogan (bythom.com) knows a bit about this sort of thing, and IIRC according to him Nikon does do something or other regarding noise reduction to their RAW files. I am not sure what Canon does, since their RAWs are frankly ugly. M4/3 cameras surely do various tricks, but I don't know what. Fuji seems to use add noise reduction as ISO grows, especially color NR, but they are the only ones who don't use any RAW compression (thus their huge 30MB files and short burst counts). Sony is the worst, and uses lossy compression, a broken quantization algorithm + NR.

Is there any other APSC camera that shoot JPEG this good OOC, with interchangeable lens option, with so many quality lens options available, in this form factor (small with built in flash, a hot shoe, flippy screen) at this price point? I think X-T10 should get gold like A6000. I know it has better AF system and video, but Fuji lens kit (and lens availability) and JPEG quality should even it out. And also since this is digital camera review not digital video camera review, image and lens quality should have much more weight than a video feature in determining the final score.

DPR has a policy that cameras are marked against similar category cameras and not all cameras, for the obvious reason that comparing the 5DS v. OMD EM10 just makes no sense.

In that context it would be nice if DPR stated the score excludes video then gave X-T10 what it deserves as a still camera.

Either way though who really cares. If you read the review you know that they love this camera, that they love the stills and that it's a nuanced tool that doesn't excel at everything. The score is fair IMHO. I love my Fuji but when people ask it's often not what I recommend.

Fujifilm and Olympus are using ISO SOS (standard output sensitivity), Nikon and Canon use ISO REI (recommended exposure index), which is actually more arbitrary than SOS.

However, even the more standardized SOS (18% average saturation in an sRGB JPEG shot with average metering w/o exposure compensation) allows a variation of ± 1/3 EV, so two different cameras using ISO SOS could actually render exposures with brightness levels that differ 2/3 EV from each other and yet still both be considered accurate.

flysurfer: while you're right about who's using which techniques to set exposure index (at least the last time I checked), the issue with Fuji is that, according to DPReview and others, Fuji has systematically fallen outside of the 1/3 EV range of allowed leeway (under exposing, natch) with multiple camera models over a span of multiple years.

I don't understand this, because my experience with an X-E1 is that it often underexposed by around 1/3 stop, choosing too low of an ISO by the same amount compared to other cameras (though I don't dispute anyone's claims, it was probably just my sample). That's the opposite of what should happen if they are cheating on ISO: the ISO should match but the shutter speed would be low.

That aside, boost a Fuji RAW by 1/3 or 2/3 EV and see if it makes a difference (esp. after noise reduction). Below ISO 6400, it probably won't, since as stated by DPR the noise performance beats most other cameras so they do have some leeway, cheating or no. Their RAWs are malleable re: exposure to the extent where I just don't care if it underexposes even by several stops, unless the histogram is piled on the left at proper exposure (eg. night shooting). Still, I've had little trouble processing slightly underexposed ISO 6400 RAWs (even using the in-camera JPEG engine) into something nice. YMMV, as always.

Is it even possible to mount a correct optical viewfinder on a mirrorless system? I know you could theoretically mount one on the hot shoe, but I doubt it will be a correct reproduction. of the view from the sensor.

I tested out an XPro1 a couple of years ago. It has a magical feature where it can switch between EVF and OVF. I started out as believing in the OVF as a must-have and the EVF as a novelty, but over the two weeks I was using it, I found myself using the EVF more and more.

And the EVF in the X-T10 is much more modern and better on all counts — let alone the even larger one on the X—T1.

So, recently, I switched to the X-T10 as kind of a longer-term experiment. I'm coming from the very nice 100%-view pentaprism in Pentax cameras, and there are many things I miss from the old system and areas where Pentax definitely does things better (balanced by things where Fujifilm does other things better, of course). But the viewfinder just plain isn't something I even think about being different. The EVF is perfectly fine.

Most of the optical finders I have looked through on lower-end DSLRs are really grim, especially on mass-market Rebel-grade cameras. Many of these do not even use a prism design. Compare with a Nikon F3, F4, or Leicaflex to see a bright finder. So why is there a continuing obsession with optical finders?

Because I still use my F2 and F 3 bodies.Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.Because I like optical finders as well as the ground glass on my larger cameras.

Add in the X10 body is just too damn small. The X-Pro1 was tolerable but the smaller bodies are almost impossible for some of us to use if we have larger hands.

> Because the TV screen jumps and aggravates/triggers dizziness and vertigo problems.

Some people might be extra sensitive to this, but for me at least, the current high-refresh-rate EVF screens make this a complete non-issue. If you're basing your opinion on last decade's EVF, I encourage you to look again.

> Add in the X10 body is just too damn small.

Note that we're talking about the X-T10, not the X10, which is a very different compact camera. But assuming you mean tthe X-T10... sure. It's not big. You may prefer the X-T1.

Tried the X-T1 and the finder is the problem. Size as well. The 1 Series Canons are the right size for my hands.When I try friends lit up creen/finder cameras at night and in dimly lit places they destroy my night vision.I'll stick with optical finders as they work for me.

Deadorff: I know exactly what you mean about the screen brightness destroying night vision, it is frustrating and also makes judging the proper WB harder. I get around that by reducing the EVF/screen brightness as low as it goes before going night shooting, which mostly fixes the problem unless it's nearly pitch black (though in that case, an optical finder has its own drawbacks).

The other side to that is that you can more properly visualize the scene at the exposure you want with an EVF at night, whereas with optical, what you see is probably *not* what you get unless you are being very careful about meteringl. With something like the A7S, you also practically have nightvision. Nice for astrophotography.

The simplest way of to explain is that the score is calculated mainly from objective assessments of the camera. Click to compare the two cameras in the scoring widget and you'll discover that they both achieved 80% very differently.

The award is the reviewer's assessment, based on their experience of it and its peers, and focused on the kinds of photographers we believe will be looking at the camera (these expectations should be spelled out in the review).

There isn't an exact match between the two: otherwise the award would just tell you the same information with less precision. However, there is a connection: it's unlikely a low scoring camera could be so well-suited to a group of shooters that it could still get an award or that a camera that scores really highly would be considered so unsuitable by the reviewer to not get one.

Yes, I was surprised at the silver award as well, and I use a Sony A6000. Granted, I love my camera and don't see myself selling it off just yet (unless they bring back a triple dial successor to the Nex-7).

But having had my hands on the X100S and X20, I realize that despite Fuji's firmware interface being somewhat irksome, the actual shooting experience is indeed quite a treat. This is especially so if you're a manual shooter, right down to the focusing. It's not quite there yet, but it's about the closest equivalent of shooting with a manual film SLR on a digital system.

It's not ugly, that's just an overreaction because it's kind of "square" compared to the other Fuji cameras. In person it's just as beautiful as the original X-E1, and I get even more compliments on my X-T10 than I did on my X-E1.

It's wonderful having a cute/neat camera, it makes people happy and curious and I get better pictures of them because of their good attitude.

The idea that Fuji cameras aren't for RAW shooters is pretty silly. The RAW files are great and Lightroom support for the film simulations makes it fun and easy to get somewhere great without too much work.

You can also start from bare grey RAW like Canon gives you, if you enjoy processing every single shot.

I hope very much that Fujifilm continue this concept in future models. For me the key feature is the very good OOC jpegs & film simulations, also the EVF and swivel screen. Also the overall very good build quality. (High-end AF is not important on this kind of a Camera).

If one can use a TV screen & do post-processing in-camera without the need for an addtional computer & software then that is a huge benefit for any user.

I don't think Fujifilm has to jump on the 4K bandwagon, just decent enough Video qualtiy would be good. Also the ability to record a short sound clip with a still image is very nice to have and would be technically easy to do.

What I would like to have is film-simulation bracketing, so that I do 5 shots in rapid succession using various film simulations & settings. At the end of the day I could then just choose which ones I want to keep. More stuff like that, neat features to have implemented by exploiting existing hardware thru better software.

I do wish the in-camera RAW processing had as many options as Pentax's does — I was surprised to read the praise for it in this review, because it's comparatively very limited. Pentax also immediately updates a preview (which fills the LCD, rather than being a very tiny thumbnail) as you change settings, not only after you make all of your choices. I hope Fujifilm implements this in a future version.

It seems that it is not possible to turn off all the raw processing options. It's cheating left and right to fool people into thinking it's better than other cameras. Only people looking for confirmation bias will fall for it.

Why would you want film simulation bracketing, when the in-camera raw processor lets you change the film simulation after the fact? Bracket exposures by aperture or shutter speed if you must, but if you want to try different film simulations, just shoot raw & retouch after the fact. That's what I do.

I'm happy for you that that is your preferred method and that you have time to use this way - but your mind set and situation are very different to mine. We don't want the same things.

I am already pretty fed up with all the PP I do already anyway- in fact that is why I'm using Fuji's excellent in camera jpg convert automatically in the first place.

MUCH easier to peruse all the options already created and chose the best on a full size screen, with full sized computing power and to just to delete the ones you don't want after the fact than faff about on a tiny screen pressing tiny buttons and taking year and a day to trawl through hundreds of images trying out different film styles to see which works best for that shot

What's the big deal? Memory is cheap FFS! Just give me better film bracketing - I want it and so why the resistance?

Fuji offer me best in class jpgs off the peg so why on earth offer 3 film simulations but prevent 5 when 5 are available? WHY? makes no sense at all.

You must love deleting images. I hate culling and managing multiple copies of the same thing. Much rather open the file in Lightroom and pick a simulation at that point on the big screen after making any obvious corrections first.

To each their own of course, I'm not against this silly feature as long as it doesn't get in the way.

That said, calm down! Three is plenty to deal with. If you want to get mad about bracketing you should focus on the exposure bracketing, which only goes +-1 stop which is barely worth doing.

A good review but I feel one point is missed. Fuji refuses to put better bracketing in their cameras and it drives me nuts. 3@+-1 is not good enough, the bare minimum should be 3@+-2 and better yet 5 or 7. For some reason this is something Fuji will not listen to anyone about, and many people do have the same complaint. I wish big photo review sites like dpreview would make light of that problem and hopefully it would help push Fuji to fall in line with everyone else on a simple function.

I agree with IBIS, that would be a welcome adittion.Focus speed is better since FW4.0.

And why is the actual Xtrans not "friendly"? Do you mean the bad demosaicing in Lightroom? That's not the fault of Xtrans, it's the fault of Adobes engineers. Other RAW converters have great results with the "unfriendly" Xtrans files.

I have an X-E1 and X-T1 plus several Fuji lenses. I love them all, but I more often shoot with my Sony a6000 simply because the lenses are so much smaller and lighter for walk-around and travel purposes. I don't understand why Fuji's lenses are so much larger when both cameras are mirrorless and have APS-C sensors.

I think BarnET has a point about the over-priced nature of Fuji lenses. Nothing to do with their worth or quality (I have 7 of them), but more the fact that they often do crazy deals or reductions on them. For example I picked up an X-M1, 16-50, 50-230 AND 27 for £450. Sold most on ebay, meaning I paid £50 for the 27, which is a long way from it's RRP. I also bought 3 lenses and got £500 back. Clearly some of the lenses could be cheaper if they can afford to do these mad deals (I'm looking at you, 27mm).

Chasing the cheap buyers is a loser's game. The volumes Fuji produces are far smaller than others and they see themselves positioned against Canon and Nikon. Thus , by comparison their prices are fair. Panasonic is trying to buy market share and in truth their lenses ARE cheaper to make.

BarnET your price examples aren't very good comparisons IMHO. They have similar equivalent focal lengths, but the equivalent apertures are WAY off. All m43 lenses have effective apertures (both in terms of light gathered and DoF) much higher than the f-stops listed implies.

If Fuji made an 18mm f/4.5 maybe it would cost $250 too.

It costs money to put good glass in front of a big sensor, and Fuji pushes it further by having very high standards of sharpness.

If you can't afford all their fancy primes then that's okay, because even the 18-55 f/2.8-4 is going to outperform most of those m43 primes in terms of light gathering anyway ;)

Congratulations on disproving the least important claim I made (that the kit zoom is as good as $1400 worth of prime lenses). You're right that I didn't calculate all values, my point was that it's not that far off and all in a single lens. How do the kit zooms from m43 compare when you do aperture equivalence? Want to math it out?

Notably you don't mention how much more you get from the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 compared to the m43 25mm f/1.4. I bet it's a good lens, but it seems good fast lenses are expensive on m43 even when they have less light+dof.

I didn't start a stupid argument I started a complex one, but you seem to love ad hominem attacks. I didn't start it for no reason either, I mentioned it because it's easy for people to be confused by "equivalent" lenses that seem similar but are fundamentally different from/worse than each other.

Maybe more importantly, there are no AF lenses even available that give the effect of something like the 35mm f/1.4 or 56mm f/1.2 for m43, you just don't have that as an option.

Also interesting is your list had nothing to match the Fuji 14mm, and certainly there's nothing even close to the 16mm f/1.4 in terms of wide angle DoF control. Neither are cheap lenses from Fuji but I'd rather have a system where they are available as options.

My real point: The reason to buy m43 isn't because the lenses are better value, because once you factor in DoF/IQ they aren't more affordable, just less good and appropriately priced.

A good reason to buy m43 is because the lenses are genuinely tiny and you value that weight/size gain. Another good reason is if you are satisfied with that level of quality/control and want to save money.

I also said the 27mm is outrageously overpriced. I said that becouse 1 it's 449 vs 299,- for a lens similar in size and focal length. Which happens to be faster even when taking the smaller sensor into account. F4.2 vs F3.4 equiv.

about the 14mm HiFi named those 4 primes.You can get a F2.8 olympus Zoom that covers that range or a Rokinon/Samyang 10mm F2.8. Great lens but it's designed for a Dslr so it's large and heavy.

Panasonic does have a 42.5mm F1.2 lens. And there are F0.95 manual focus lenses available too. Problem is that Panasonic gave that F1.2 a stupid price tag.

But then m43 has a 42.5mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8. I reckon a lot of Fujifilm Users would love to have the option of a light 56mm F1.8 at 399-499 right?Me and my XE-2 included. This weekend i have the Olympus 45mm glued on a Gx7 while using the XE-2 with the 18-55 to cover wide to normal in a photoshoot.

> Panasonic does have a 42.5mm F1.2 lens. And there are F0.95 manual focus lenses available too. Problem is that Panasonic gave that F1.2 a stupid price tag.

Wow yeah, I didn't know about that one (announced after I settled my research and picked Fuji). Looks impressive but like you say, the price isn't a selling point at all considering the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is way cheaper AND obviously will give more DoF control and light. Wow, it's also HEAVIER and LONGER than the Fuji 56mm! That's not what I was expecting. The takeaway to me: Fuji is pretty good at making high end lenses if not cheap midrange ones. Once you decide to invest they give you something worth investing in.

I think we both know those f/0.95 lenses are neither practical nor affordable :P I could go out and adapt a true leica lens to my Fuji if I had $3k and all day to focus :P

> I reckon a lot of Fujifilm Users would love to have the option of a light 56mm F1.8 at 399-499 right?

Yeah definitely, we can agree on that! There's a lot of people begging for a cheap+light trinity of 23mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 56mm f/2 lenses to go with the f/1.4-f/1.2 set, though really the 27mm and 60mm are what those people don't realize they want. It's too bad the 60mm is a weird duck with the slow focus on older cameras (apparently the new FW for the X-T* cameras improves it dramatically) or it would be an obvious starter choice.

Personally I just adapted a basically free manual 50mm f/2 for bokeh and made do with the 18-55mm 'till I could afford to start investing in high end primes. It's fun and all these mirrorless cameras are great at making do with MF.

I looked at the 60mm F2.4 and even tried it. But the AF motor is a problem. Optics are top notch but the F2.4 gives me the same seperation as the mm43 bodies. (identical to the olympus 45mm f1.8.)

That lens is quiet fast and precise. 3 things the 60mm is not. So yeah i would buy a 56mm F2 Hell i would rush to the shop right after the announcement to reserve one. The 27mm is not what i want. It's not fast not great and very expensive. I'd rather stick to my 18-55 all day long then switch it out for that.

I agree completely about the 18-55mm dissuading me from buying the cheaper primes, it's so good that I'd rather make do with it than switch out for one stop of light.

If the kit lens was f/3.5-5.6 the 60mm f/2.4 would be a much more obvious buy, as would the 18mm f/2. As-is you kind of need a high end prime just to get something that the kit lens doesn't give you already. IMHO this is a feature not a detriment though! I got my X-E1 for $800 including the 18-55mm, which was a big part of the reason I chose Fuji.

By comparison the kit lenses from Olympus and Sony (the other two brands I considered) struck me as nearly useless and I felt like I'd need to buy new lenses right away. I barely use the Fuji 18-55 now that I have 16+35mm f/1.4 primes, but when I was starting out it was priceless.

I bought the XE-2 mostly becouse the 18-55mm zoom. To lesser extent i really liked my brief time with the 55-200 F3.5-4.8 It's just head and shoulders above most mirrorless telephoto lenses. Exception are of course the F2.8 constants of some brands.

I could buy the XE-2 with this kit-lens for the equiv. of buying that same lens in m43 (i would have bought the olympus 12-40mm otherwise.

But since i lovd the fujifilm rendering in B&W and solely used the Gx7 with primes anyway i tried this instead.

And the quality of that lens speaks louder then words. It truly is not your average kit-lens. I have just 1 complain with mine. Barrel distortion at 18mm. That is it's 1 and only flaw.

Nice. All I'll add is that once you try one of Fuji's wide primes you may re-assess the quality of the 18-55mm :P

The 16mm f/1.4 is neither small (it weighs more than the X-T10) nor cheap (it also costs more), but the contrast, color and sharpness are a joy to edit compared to the 18-55mm, which always feels "grungy" or something by comparison. Maybe it's just f/1.4 making everything glow but damn the photos just make me feel good ;)

I find suprising that in the review RAW quality is judged only by the Adobe support of it. If so many people are too lazy to test some other RAW developers, mainly Capture One or Iridient, is not a position DPR should support. Lightroom is not the standard of industry. Photoshop was, but now is endangered by the crazy subscription policy. In the past Adobe has been an essential building force for the whole digital photography movement. But now I find it erratic in decisions, just as if they had lost vision.

Capture1 costs 10$/month just like Lightroom, but LR comes with Photoshop AND LR Mobile+hosting. If price is the concern I don't think Lightroom is in big trouble.

You're definitely wrong about the industry if you think LR isn't the standard. Sure it's not the only choice, but there's a whole lot of people who don't want to switch away from it just to try out a new camera system.

That said I am satisfied with the support for Fuji in LR. The problem with your photos is you and your lack of imagination, not the RAW processor.

Capture one is not just the standard, it's practically mandatory in medium format commercial shots. You will lose contracts for not having it. LR is not quite the equivalent in its market segment, but close, however that has nothing to do with its quality IMHO. Capture One and Iridient Developer are incredibly good. The workflow and interface are very different and I feel that is what prevents LR users from getting the most out of them when they try it, it certainly takes time to acclimate.

Webm agree with what you're saying, though "equivalent in its market segment" isn't really the important question, since the market segments are vastly different in size. Maybe there are thousands of medium format users who would only use C1, but there are tens of millions of LR users, many professional. That there is more competition in the non-medium-format market can be explained by it's comparatively enormous size.

I'm surprised the review didn't mention two problems that become immediately obvious after just a short period of shooting with camera.

1. The exposure measurements. I noticed X-T10 in many situations underexposes compared to previous X-E*, X-A* models. I often have to boost brightness by +0.5 or more in LR. Previous models were very good nailing the exposure, this time Fuji is more like Sony constantly underexposing.

2. The focus precision isn't good: I found camera back focused in too many pictures. I put it head to head against X-A1 and the latter didn't have this problem. I was using a single central point in AF-S mode. I think it's even worse in other modes.

Evaluative. I've seen worse, but the problem is clearly and obviously that the firmware is designed to underexpose and then amplify using the camera's strange DR modes. I think I can see what Fuji were trying to achieve, but I prefer to have accurate metering and set ISO/aperture/speed as appropriate; I hate cameras that try to second guess me!! That said, if you shoot raw, set the DR to 100, ISO 200 (or whatever you need for shutter speed) then the cameras work OK, but you need to review your histogram and compensate...

I don't think it's right to say the images are "underexposed", or that it's an attempt to cheat ISO numbers. The very few people who obsess about those numbers online aren't a big concern; people aren't likely to buy this camera over that value anyway.

Instead, they're part of the film simulation look Fujifilm is going for. They simply choose a lower exposure than you might as the default. The existence of a physical EV compensation dial makes this easy to change if you don't like it — you can leave it dialed up a notch.

I do wish, instead, that they'd made this a tunable parameter of the film simulation modes — not to harp on this too much, but.... Pentax does exactly that (there's a seven-point scale from low-key to high-key).

The main problem here is that the camera manufacturers have agreed up on a standard by which the exposure index should be set. Fuji has, according to DPReview and others, systematically failed to follow that standard in a way that would favor JPEG images from their cameras in terms of image noise when compared cameras from other makers who follow the standard.

If there wasn't a standard, or if Fuji decided to call their ISO something other than 'ISO', thereby making it clear that they were using something other than the ISO standard to set exposure index, things would be fine. But as long as they call it 'ISO' while failing to follow the rules of the standard, 'cheating' seems like a completely fair word to use to characterize what they're doing.

i can´t say that any of my fuji cameras (i used) "underexposes", on the contrary, if you just use matrix metering they very often totaly blow highlights and give a very punchy, contrasty and bright image. on my 5D3 on the other hand i am most of the time at +1EV compensation, or even more, to get the result i want.

I feel like I've noticed a similar effect compared to my X-E1, when I get home I'm boosting exposure on more photos than before.

That said I suspect it has more to do with the updated EVF, which now auto-compensates for different situations. Previously my sense of exposure while shooting was heavily influenced by the appropriateness of the EVF brightness setting, whereas now I need to get used to the more neutral brightness it chooses for me.

I hate the feeling that the grip is smaller than the XT-1 only to differentiate the fact that it is a cheaper model. I'm sure it wouldn't have cost much to add a bigger grip and tempt more people who originally wanted an XT-1 but can't afford it. It might also have helped those looks, this isn't supposed to be a rangefinder after all.. Given how far the lenses stick out a larger grip wouldn't have compromised the form factor. *grumble*

It's so beautiful by default but I agree, extremely impractical even with the 35mm f/1.4 on there (which is small).

Driving the X-T10 with the 16mm f/1.4 out front is borderline absurd.

Anyone who values/needs a "handle" should factor the cost of the add-on grip into their purchase decision. It's very useful and makes holding the camera for extended periods infinitely easier, as well as improving overall grip and making it easier to operate one-handed in a pinch.

Wish the grip was cheaper though! They should price it as a "customization" rather than as an "upgrade".

More about gear in this article

In our most recent Field Test, we took Fujifilm's X-T10 out onto the streets of Seattle with local photographer Brad Puet. After capturing our street portraits we took the images to a local print shop, to get them turned into exhibition-quality prints. Read more

It's the season for pre-holiday financial earnings reports, and Fujifilm's latest numbers tell a familiar story - digital camera sales are down on the whole, with steady sales of higher-end products. Despite that, Fuji's imaging solutions division saw an increase in operating income, up to 12.4 billion yen in the first half of the financial year, marking a 2.7x improvement year-on-year. Read more

Our full Fujifilm X-T10 review takes a look at many aspects of the camera's performance, with in-depth analysis of our studio tests and shooting experiences. But if you're looking for something more bite-sized, we've got that too. Take a look at the quick version of our review, shot in Seattle's lovely Golden Gardens where many of the images featured in our full review were taken. See video

The Fujifilm X-T10 puts many of the X-T1's capabilities into a smaller, less expensive body. It uses the same 16MP X-Trans CMOS sensor and EXR Processor II and, despite a more compact body, offers an additional custom function button and even squeezes in a pop-up flash. Is the X-T10 capable of holding its own against APS-C competitors? Read our full analysis. Read more

We had been shooting around with a pre-production version of the Fujifilm X-T10 for some time and recently got in a final version of the camera. Like the flagship X-T1, it uses Fujifilm's 16MP X-Trans APS-C sensor, which is known for producing pleasing colors. As such, we included a variety of out-of-camera JPEGs as well as Raw conversions. See the gallery

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.